Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


(2)
Message 218 of 416 (527337)
09-30-2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:40 PM


Atomic bombs?
Calypsis4 writes:
Your statement reveals the depth of naivete you are afflicted with. Far from being a 'straw man' it can be more likened unto the atomic bomb on evolution.
Calypsis4 writes:
I have been avoiding 'Dr. Adequate' because of his continual put-downs and condescending attitude.
Dr. Adequate writes:
apparently you've discovered the ultimate argument against evolution, and yet you can't actually say what it is.
I would very much appreciate if you would kindly respond to the question as if you have been asked in the most polite form possible.
What is the point you are trying to make? Your reply could begin like this "Living fossils are the atomic bomb on evolution because"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:40 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 7:54 AM Vacate has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 287 of 416 (527638)
10-02-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 7:54 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
Why, at this point of the debate would this be in question?
It is still in question simply because you have not explained the importance of living fossils as a proof against evolution. It has been explained to you that it was Darwin himself who first brought up living fossils and to this day they do not present a problem for evolution as they are predicted and necessary for evolution. Not all animals evolve at the same rate and so if there was a complete absence of living fossils I would expect that would call evolution into question much more than a few hundred examples of their existence.
This hardly seems to be an atomic bomb on evolution. There are plenty of ways that evolution could be found to be false, this is not one of them. Though you have stated that it should be obvious I am at a loss to understand how, and apparently so is everyone else. Perhaps you have simply mistaken what should and should not be the results of evolution? If Darwin suggested that living fossils should exist, all biologists suggest they should exist, and you have not provided a reason why they should not exist; is it not more likely you have misunderstood the concept?
The fossil organisms that I have posted in comparison with their living offspring, although not always the same species are certainly within the same family and they reveal no change. One can easily recognize almost all of them by appearance alone.
There are examples that you have posted however that others have pointed out to you are not in the same family. If that is the classification system that you choose to use in support of your argument I think it dishonest to discount those that are not in agreement with your argument. The common approach in honest discourse is to provide a reasonable and detailed reason why you disagree with the classification system in regards to that particular example.
Though I agree that the examples you provide can be recognized often by mere appearance, mere appearance is not the only method of classification in biology. To suggest that this is the correct method means that you disagree with current classification methods without providing a reasonable explanation why. This also begs the question of why you would choose this system as a means to support your argument.
If evolution were true then why are there so many hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of the species while there is virtually nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms?
There should be hundreds of examples of so called 'non-evolution' as you have described it. They are all fine examples of living fossils, as predicted by evolution, and I am sure that all participants in this thread could provide many more examples for you. The question that keeps coming up however is why you think this supports your argument.
The problem with your claim of 'nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms' is that first the statement is so poorly worded I wonder if you realize the humor. Your whole argument is based upon a lack of change in these organisms so it seems obvious that there would be nothing in the fossil record to establish a change in these organisms that even you claim did not take place. If however you meant to say there is nothing in the fossil record to establish changes between any organisms then you are making a dishonest attempt to have others post examples when it is quite obviously off topic. There are threads for such a request, or you could certainly make your own.
The few examples that my opponents have posted are both pitiful and highly suspect at best.
There are many more examples and it would be interesting to see you attempt to prove their authenticity to be suspect.
None of us who converted from evolution take those examples seriously any longer because we learned in our studies the details of those discoveries and how the facts have been manipulated to fit the theory.
Manipulation of facts is fraudulent and there is just such a thread active on the forum right now. You could be the first to provide an actual example.
I hope this answers it. Have a nice day.
No, not really. Thank you and have a nice day also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 7:54 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:56 AM Vacate has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 312 of 416 (527754)
10-02-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
Calypsis4 writes:
quote:
It is still in question simply because you have not explained the importance of living fossils as a proof against evolution
That's like telling Columbus, "You haven't proven the world is round because you didn't complete a journey around the globe!"
Right.
Dodge. Avoiding the question by pretending its silly to ask it, if the question is silly then it should be easy to answer. Or are you willing to admit carrying this on is dishonest?
Yes, there are and I intend to utilize them.
Spectacular, not only can you be the first but you could start by concluding this thread and answering the question everyone has asked you.
"as predicted by evolution"? No, don't even go there.
I did. Don't avoid the question.
Evolutionists 100 yrs ago did not know this was going to happen.
As pointed out to you, Darwin brought it up.
But what is easy to do with cars is impossible with evolution. The evidence simply isn't there and what scant evidence they do have is highly in question.
Then start a thread, you keep bringing it up when its off topic. That is just bluster when you know that your claims can't be challenged on this thread. Defend your OP please.
Which is the real 'Zinjanthropus'?
Neither. Those are artistic renditions (as if you didn't know). Wait, is this on topic?? Atomic bombs, please and thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:56 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:08 PM Vacate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024